Sorry you do not see the distinction. My mistake..
I have no idea if you are admitting the wriggle, or suggesting that I failed to see your subtle point. If the former - thank you. Let's not have to do this every time. If the latter - you are equivocating. It is unseemly. Stop it.
You stand by that statement? This is from this past February...
http://time.com/3705594/inner-core-earth-planet-iron/
There may be an 'inner inner' core at the heart of the planet
I said "We have a very sound knowledge of the core composition and of its properties.What makes you think we don't?
We have known its gross properties for several decades and are regularly refining our understanding of the details."
You stated that the Earth has "some sort of core that
we have no idea what it is made of or it's properties." Let's consider some of the features of the core before and after this research you seem to feel is so important.
1. There is a core. No change there.
2. The core has about a 4620 km radius. No change there.
3. There is an outer core that will transmit P waves, but not shear waves. It is therefore liquid. No change there.
4. The outer core consists primarily of iron, with an admixture of nickel and other minor constituents. No change there.
5. Convection currents exist in this outer core that generate the Earth's magnetic field. No change there.
6. There is an inner core that is solid. No change there.
7. The inner core has a radius of about 1220km. No change there.
8. The inner core is composed primarily of iron crystals with an admixture of other minor components. No change there.
9. The iron crystals are oriented in a N-S direction. Partial change here - there is a smaller inner inner core where the crystals are oriented E-W.
We know what the core is made of. We know its properties. One small, interesting detail has changed. Your assertion that
we have no idea what it is made of or it's properties is not simply hyperbole. It is demonstrably wrong. If you wish your ideas to be taken seriously you need to stop making gross exaggerations and concede promptly when you have been shown to be wrong.
Wexler said:
Again, you are taking an incredibly Earth-centric-approach while ignoring the England evidence...watch that lectrue...and then consider that multicelluarity is a pivotal leap in evolution and seems to occur without the consumption of another organism.
Stop changing the subject. I was addressing your specific claim that the Theia impact imparted the Earth's axial tilt; that this led to much variability in surface conditions; and that this represented a broken Earth.
I demonstrated that the Theia impact had actually contributed to the stability of the Earth's axis by providing the moon.
I don't think you even realise that you are behaving dishonestly. You challenge me on one point. I address it and you ignore the facts I have provided and shoot off at a tangent. I ask you please to stop behaving in such an unpleasant manner. Address the points directly, do not equivocate, do not avoid answering by changing the subject.